Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:32 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29122
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
MysticalRose wrote:
Seriously folks according to Kant the Matrix is reality

No, it is not. Have you ever read Kant?

Hume had a problem with Aristotelean epistemology. He argued that for are we knew, the idea of casuality (cause and effect) was hard wired in us with no guarantee of it corresponding with reality. Kant answered this problem by an act of faith that the idea of casuality was implanted by a benevolent God and therefore did indeed match reality...he denied we could have real knowledge because of this though. He did not deny an objective order.!

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:34 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29122
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
MysticalRose wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Tell me can they prove that God does not exist? IOWS, is it theoretical that God does not exist or is it Scientifically proven Fact that He does not?

What are the differences between theory and Fact?

You cannot prove either side of the equation Scientifically really to conclusivity... So therefore Scientifically it is theorized that either He does or does not exist .... One holds the positive position and the other the negative position... But prove to me that a Deity such a God the one that we believe in and have taken a leap of Faith in, as you have put it does not exist, conclusively and Factually ... not theoretically


Umm...actually we do have a science of God's existence which can be scientifically proven, just not empirically. It is dogma actually that God's existence can be known by natural reason....I have no faith that God exists, I know He exists through reason.

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:43 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant was no relativist...sheesh. Mysticalrose, Kantian philosophy isn't relativist...Hegel is another matter. He messed up, but he did so trying to believe in objective things.

I go to probably the most conservative Catholic school in the nation...Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is something we have to read and dissect. It isn't this cut and dry


I agree that HE wasn't... But, I do believe that his attempt to give us an objective ethics failed to do so. Thus, the application of his imperatives will result in relativism... am I wrong about that?

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:00 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
MysticalRose wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


Tell me can they prove that God does not exist? IOWS, is it theoretical that God does not exist or is it Scientifically proven Fact that He does not?

What are the differences between theory and Fact?

You cannot prove either side of the equation Scientifically really to conclusivity... So therefore Scientifically it is theorized that either He does or does not exist .... One holds the positive position and the other the negative position... But prove to me that a Deity such a God the one that we believe in and have taken a leap of Faith in, as you have put it does not exist, conclusively and Factually ... not theoretically


Umm...actually we do have a science of God's existence which can be scientifically proven, just not empirically. It is dogma actually that God's existence can be known by natural reason....I have no faith that God exists, I know He exists through reason.


That is not what I asked .... I asked you to prove to me that God does not exist without using reason .... Scientifically .... If this could have been done do you not think it would have been done long before now Scientifically?

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:02 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
MysticalRose wrote:
Seriously folks according to Kant the Matrix is reality

No, it is not. Have you ever read Kant?

Hume had a problem with Aristotelean epistemology. He argued that for are we knew, the idea of casuality (cause and effect) was hard wired in us with no guarantee of it corresponding with reality. Kant answered this problem by an act of faith that the idea of casuality was implanted by a benevolent God and therefore did indeed match reality...he denied we could have real knowledge because of this though. He did not deny an objective order.!


Do you have real knowledge or not? I do .....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:04 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
forumjunkie wrote:
MysticalRose wrote:
Here is why they are using Kant .....


Kant's Philosophy

The keystone of Kant's philosophy, sometimes called critical philosophy, is contained in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), in which he examined the bases of human knowledge and created an individual epistemology. Like earlier philosophers, Kant differentiated modes of thinking into analytic and synthetic propositions. An analytic proposition is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject, as in the statement “Black houses are houses.” The truth of this type of proposition is evident, because to state the reverse would be to make the proposition self-contradictory. Such propositions are called analytic because truth is discovered by the analysis of the concept itself. Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, are those that cannot be arrived at by pure analysis, as in the statement “The house is black.” All the common propositions that result from experience of the world are synthetic.

Propositions, according to Kant, can also be divided into two other types: empirical and a priori. Empirical propositions depend entirely on sense perception, but a priori propositions have a fundamental validity and are not based on such perception. The difference between these two types of proposition may be illustrated by the empirical “The house is black” and the a priori “Two plus two makes four.” Kant's thesis in the Critique is that it is possible to make synthetic a priori judgments. This philosophical position is usually known as transcendentalism. In describing how this type of judgment is possible Kant regarded the objects of the material world as fundamentally unknowable; from the point of view of reason, they serve merely as the raw material from which sensations are formed. Objects of themselves have no existence, and space and time exist only as part of the mind, as “intuitions” by which perceptions are measured and judged.

In addition to these intuitions, Kant stated that a number of a priori concepts, which he called categories, also exist. He divided the categories into four groups: those concerning quantity, which are unity, plurality, and totality; those concerning quality, which are reality, negation, and limitation; those concerning relation, which are substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect, and reciprocity; and those concerning modality, which are possibility, existence, and necessity. The intuitions and the categories can be applied to make judgments about experiences and perceptions, but cannot, according to Kant, be applied to abstract ideas such as freedom and existence without leading to inconsistencies in the form of pairs of contradictory propositions, or “antinomies,” in which both members of each pair can be proved true.

In the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) Kant described his ethical system, which is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. Kant described two types of commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.”

Kant's ethical ideas are a logical outcome of his belief in the fundamental freedom of the individual as stated in his Critique of Practical Reason (1788). This freedom he did not regard as the lawless freedom of anarchy, but rather as the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously the laws of the universe as revealed by reason. He believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself and that the world was progressing toward an ideal society in which reason would “bind every law giver to make his laws in such a way that they could have sprung from the united will of an entire people, and to regard every subject, in so far as he wishes to be a citizen, on the basis of whether he has conformed to that will.” In his treatise Perpetual Peace (1795) Kant advocated the establishment of a world federation of republican states.

Kant had a greater influence than any other philosopher of modern times. Kantian philosophy, particularly as developed by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, was the basis on which the structure of Marxism was built; the dialectical method, used by both Hegel and Karl Marx, was an outgrowth of the method of reasoning by “antinomies” that Kant used. The German philosopher Johann Fichte, Kant's pupil, rejected his teacher's division of the world into objective and subjective parts and developed an idealistic philosophy that also had great influence on 19th-century socialists. One of Kant's successors at the University of Königsberg, J.F. Herbart, incorporated some of Kant's ideas in his system of pedagogy.
http://www.connect.net/ron/kant.html

According to Kant and his philosophy there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative to the pereceptions of the observer. This is the height of RELATIVISM.... According to him we cannot even conclude that we exist here in this time or dimmension, that would be something that is a perception as well ....


According to Kant and his philosophy there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative to the pereceptions of the observer. This is the height of RELATIVISM....

I'll admit that it has been about 10 years since I read Kant, but I think the final analysis is wrong. Kant DID believe in absolutes... What he did not believe was that were privy to them through reason as much as other philosophers thought.

(If I remember correctly) Kant attempted to give an objective morality without a direct metaphysics. The problem that I agree with is that it fails. At the end of the day, it is indeed relativism... Or, at least it could become such.

EDIT - BTW, I will gladly bow to anyone who is a little more proximate to a study of Kant... I am digging deep into the memory here. I deal only with Aquinas now...

FJ
Is this what the Church teaches though are we or are we not privy to the absolute that God exists through reason and is this not what the Church teaches us? Therefore would it not be in error to think that we cannot and contrary to the our Teachings to believe thus ...

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:07 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Kant? What kind of argument does he use to show that Kant (who believe in a benevolent God who implanted the concept of casuality into us...thus trying to avoid the problem of Hume) is wrong?

The only difference between me and Kant is that I take a leap of faith in common sense avoiding his dilemma...I know no way of disproving his position, which winds up resting on faith that our inborn sense of casuality corresponds with reality.


He makes the assertion that Kant posited that if I see a tree, I can know its' color, shape, etc but can never know its 'tree-ness', thereby negating our ability to actually KNOW anything. It's all merely our perception of that tree that is our reality and nothing, therefore is absolute but only our perceptions.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:08 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
rel·a·tiv·ism (rĕl'ə-tĭ-vĭz'əm)
n. Philosophy.
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
The noun relativism has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved


relativism

The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative” — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.



If what you say is true that we cannot know the absolutes and that this was his theory then by defintion then this man did advance and believed in relativism Therefore was a relativist

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:10 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
Is this what the Church teaches though are we or are we not privy to the absolute that God exists through reason and is this not what the Church teaches us? Therefore would it not be in error to think that we cannot and contrary to the our Teachings to believe thus ...

Heh... I am a thomist... I don't think Kant is consistent with Catholicism at all. I do believe it results in relativism and even helped usher in denominationalism... BUT BUT BUT... and I think this is what PED is objecting to... KANT HIMSELF was no relativist. He believed he WAS arriving at a truly objective ethics. He thought the application of his imperatives would have everyone acting rightly according to God authored absolutes that he himself believed in...

At least, that is how I remember him... So, to just put him on a list of troublemakers is, imho, going too far. Any philosopher can be criticized here and there... But, the condemnation of one should only be because of their intention. Kant did not intend to give ammo to relativists or atheists.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:13 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MysticalRose wrote:
rel·a·tiv·ism (rĕl'ə-tĭ-vĭz'əm)
n. Philosophy.
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
The noun relativism has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved


relativism

The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative” — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied.



If what you say is true that we cannot know the absolutes and that this was his theory then by defintion then this man did advance and believed in relativism Therefore was a relativist


Well, at this point I will have to bow to someone else because I really cannot remember any specifics about what I am about to say, but I remember that Kant assumed a priori knowledge of metaphysical realities that were necessary to live by his imperatives. He took the existence of God for one as a given. But, since I can no longer remember the specifics to answer your question I am going to bow out and let others more knowledgable take over...

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:15 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
forumjunkie wrote:
Is this what the Church teaches though are we or are we not privy to the absolute that God exists through reason and is this not what the Church teaches us? Therefore would it not be in error to think that we cannot and contrary to the our Teachings to believe thus ...

Heh... I am a thomist... I don't think Kant is consistent with Catholicism at all. I do believe it results in relativism and even helped usher in denominationalism... BUT BUT BUT... and I think this is what PED is objecting to... KANT HIMSELF was no relativist. He believed he WAS arriving at a truly objective ethics. He thought the application of his imperatives would have everyone acting rightly according to God authored absolutes that he himself believed in...

At least, that is how I remember him... So, to just put him on a list of troublemakers is, imho, going too far. Any philosopher can be criticized here and there... But, the condemnation of one should only be because of their intention. Kant did not intend to give ammo to relativists or atheists.

FJ


And I am sure that Luther believed he was right and intended to give no ammo to the Reformation either but instead it happened did it not? How could he give ammunition if he was not in error to begin with?

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:19 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
MysticalRose wrote:
forumjunkie wrote:
Is this what the Church teaches though are we or are we not privy to the absolute that God exists through reason and is this not what the Church teaches us? Therefore would it not be in error to think that we cannot and contrary to the our Teachings to believe thus ...

Heh... I am a thomist... I don't think Kant is consistent with Catholicism at all. I do believe it results in relativism and even helped usher in denominationalism... BUT BUT BUT... and I think this is what PED is objecting to... KANT HIMSELF was no relativist. He believed he WAS arriving at a truly objective ethics. He thought the application of his imperatives would have everyone acting rightly according to God authored absolutes that he himself believed in...

At least, that is how I remember him... So, to just put him on a list of troublemakers is, imho, going too far. Any philosopher can be criticized here and there... But, the condemnation of one should only be because of their intention. Kant did not intend to give ammo to relativists or atheists.

FJ


And I am sure that Luther believed he was right and intended to give no ammo to the Reformation either but instead it happened did it not? How could he give ammunition if he was not in error to begin with?


Heh... Luther was no philosopher imho... Catholic Theologians must be held to a much higher standard because their job is not to construct things from scratch but to support dogma... Kant was protestant. But, as a protestant, he tried to present an objective morality.

Heck, I don't like a lot of things Aristotle said, and I am glad Aquinas cleaned HIS philosophy up... But, I would be offended at anyone who dissed him... He did a good job for what he had to work with... Same with a protestant philosopher...

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:42 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
I was drawing an analogy, and Luther was a Protestant thank you otherwise how do you think the Protestant movement got it's name, but from the protestations of Luther against the Church to begin with....

Which by the wzay has nothing to do with the conclusion I was drawing and of which was avoided .... That is that INTENT has nothing to do with, it is the harm that is caused by taking into one's hands being more expedient than God to begin with which both men thought they were, they placed themselves above something else ....

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:48 pm 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 103398
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
MySavingGrace wrote:
the biggest reason I see people are atheist with lack of "proof" is believing in immaculate conception. They don't view it as possible.


msg... the Immaculate Conception refers to our Lady's conception,free from the stain of original sin, not our Lord's birth from a Virgin... just wanted to make sure you are aware of that

_________________
All Marian devotion begins with Christ,is centered on Christ,and ends with Christ.
As Mary brought Jesus to us,so shall She bring us to Jesus!


De Maria numquam satis

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:49 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
what does raising Lazarus form teh dead mean?


I thought immaculate conception meant not having sex but through God who gave Jesus to Mary and us. This is what people mean though. How can a virgin give birth? They view it as impossible.


I used to too. I think you ahve to belive in God cause with God its possible.

_________________
49 lbs lost and 6.5 left to go

"One single act of love will make us know Jesus better...It will bring us closer to him for all eternity." -----St. Therese of Liseux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:03 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29122
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Actually, both mysticalrose and forumjunkie, I was honestly curious what arguments Geisler uses against Kant...because I would like to have some good arguments against him! I wasn't defending Kant's position, except insofar as I was making clear what his position truly was.

Goodsamaritan, yes he did deny that we could know the essence of a tree. IOW he denied induction, that process by which a universal comes to rest in the soul. But you guys really don't understand just how complicated this is...which might be a good thing

Ultimately I place faith in common sense. As a friend of mine wrote "I can know things...certainty be hanged."

Okay, maybe I can illustrate what I mean

1. Hume raises an objection against Aristolean epistemology (epistemology meaning the science of science, or the science of knowledge, or more clearly how we know things). Aristotle, and neither Hume nor Kant quarrels with this, presents a defnse of demonstrative knowledge in his posterior analytics. He goes at length about how "necessity" can produce new knowledge. The problem arises with the fact that we need undemonstrated knowledge from which to derive scientific or demonstrable knowledge. Ultimately, he answers that we have sense perception. We remember individual things. Our various memories of various men form an experience of man, that which belongs per totum (to man necessarily, in all cases and AS man) is thus induced. For this to work, however, one must know cause and effect.

Hume argued that for all we knew cause and effect (casuality) was inborn in us, with no guarantee of it matching reality.

2. Kant, in trying to uphold an objective ethics and such, runs into Hume's difficulty. He winds up saying Hume is right, we cannot know anything because we cannot be certain. But he is quick to emphasise a Faith that a benevolent God granted us this concept of casuality, therefore it does match reality. To him such faith was ultimately reasonable, and to deny it (to plunge into relativism and nihilism) was unreasonable...poor Kant, you guys make him look like Nietzche

3. I reject Hume's dilemma. I place faith in common sense, I can know things. Descartes "evil genius", Hume's and Kant's hang up on certainty be damned.

However, if Geisler gives some valid argument solving Kant's dilemma I would want to know it....rather than merely place faith in common sense.

Mystical Rose, do you see what I am getting at?

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:10 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Actually, both mysticalrose and forumjunkie, I was honestly curious what arguments Geisler uses against Kant...because I would like to have some good arguments against him! I wasn't defending Kant's position, except insofar as I was making clear what his position truly was.

Goodsamaritan, yes he did deny that we could know the essence of a tree. IOW he denied induction, that process by which a universal comes to rest in the soul. But you guys really don't understand just how complicated this is...which might be a good thing

Ultimately I place faith in common sense. As a friend of mine wrote "I can know things...certainty be hanged."

Okay, maybe I can illustrate what I mean

1. Hume raises an objection against Aristolean epistemology (epistemology meaning the science of science, or the science of knowledge, or more clearly how we know things). Aristotle, and neither Hume nor Kant quarrels with this, presents a defnse of demonstrative knowledge in his posterior analytics. He goes at length about how "necessity" can produce new knowledge. The problem arises with the fact that we need undemonstrated knowledge from which to derive scientific or demonstrable knowledge. Ultimately, he answers that we have sense perception. We remember individual things. Our various memories of various men form an experience of man, that which belongs per totum (to man necessarily, in all cases and AS man) is thus induced. For this to work, however, one must know cause and effect.

Hume argued that for all we knew cause and effect (casuality) was inborn in us, with no guarantee of it matching reality.

2. Kant, in trying to uphold an objective ethics and such, runs into Hume's difficulty. He winds up saying Hume is right, we cannot know anything because we cannot be certain. But he is quick to emphasise a Faith that a benevolent God granted us this concept of casuality, therefore it does match reality. To him such faith was ultimately reasonable, and to deny it (to plunge into relativism and nihilism) was unreasonable...poor Kant, you guys make him look like Nietzche

3. I reject Hume's dilemma. I place faith in common sense, I can know things. Descartes "evil genius", Hume's and Kant's hang up on certainty be damned.

However, if Geisler gives some valid argument solving Kant's dilemma I would want to know it....rather than merely place faith in common sense.

Mystical Rose, do you see what I am getting at?


poor Kant, you guys make him look like Nietzche

I hope you read my posts... On the contrary, I know that he was no relativist... Heck, I believe the chapter in the text I used to study him was "Kant: The mediator between (something) and (something)" (I think it was stumpf's socrates to sartre)... Anyway... I only really studied Kant in Ethics... In metaphysics we only got to him as a critique.

My criticism is that his ethics can only be practiced as a form of relativism. To properly define the maxim one uses his own experience. This leads to relativism.

But, it has been 10 years... I will bow to the master...

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:42 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Where does one find athiests? Maybe I don't travel in the right circles, but I rarely encounter them. Some people talk as if they are common enough to constitute a problem. Who can name a living American athiest?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:47 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11080
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
Yoga wrote:
Where does one find athiests? Maybe I don't travel in the right circles, but I rarely encounter them. Some people talk as if they are common enough to constitute a problem. Who can name a living American athiest?


I teach professing atheists everyday...

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:38 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:01 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
what does raising Lazarus form teh dead mean?

_________________
49 lbs lost and 6.5 left to go

"One single act of love will make us know Jesus better...It will bring us closer to him for all eternity." -----St. Therese of Liseux


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: